Are you speaking of yourself here? :)
As opposed to, speaking as a staffer? Well, I work for Product Development. So the chances of me giving binding policy statements on privacy issues are slim to none :).
Speaking personally: I can't think of a single good reason why Victor's stuff should be released. Speaking as a staffer: I'd rather everyone and their pet dog didn't have my phone number, even if we saw Everyone's passport at one point :). There's definitely stuff on officewiki that should be more public (speaking just for my own work, there's a lot of strategic planning there) but I'd argue the docs available on officewiki don't accuratey represent the public availability *of* those docs; we can see that docX exists on officewiki, and is to do with something the communities care about, but that doesn't mean a concrete form of docX wasn't then /released/ to the community for their perusal, consideration, comment and vote.
An illustration here would be: I've got my engagement strategy for what became Page Curation on officewiki. It's a place where I can write and rewrite it, my bosses can check it for stupid, and if there *is* stupid we catch it before it causes problems. Someone looking at that in isolation would go "this should totally be public! It's about engagement and deployment timetables,and we should be transparent about it". And we are transparent about it - because the document later became public, in an altered and finalised form. But the two aren't necessarily linked together, which makes this rather opaque.
There are totally some docs on office-wiki that could do with more publicity. But there are far more that are private - fully private - for a good reason, and I'd imagine some of those that look ready for public release were, in fact, released.
Apologies for the TL;DR rant :)